I just noticed that you are one of those who think that poor people should be denied the vote (from another thread). You are awfully selective on
whom you think deserves ANY rights in this country... Are you sure you are an American??? You sound like a Fascist to me!

Are you trying to
discredit my point of view on these issues? If you want to discuss that issue do it on that thread, not here.

Think about it.
when I was young you could openly insult gay people. Call them whatever name you wanted. They got fired for no reason from jobs. Stuff like that.

Now you can't openly insult them, they can lord workplace/school harassment over us, most women done condone gay bashing. Can't make any kind of gay
reference let alone an insult. Link
You remember that dire straits song money for nothing? They recently tried to change the lyrics and it was banned in Canada for offensive lyrics. The
ban was recently lifted.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It is about, and ONLY about equality. Please try to get that through you thick skulls. Let me give you a real
world example of why we want this:

I had two very good friends who were together for over 20 years. When one of them came out to his family decades earlier, they completely disowned
him. He has not spoken to them in over two decades. One day he had a stroke and went into a coma. Since legally he and his partner were nothing
more than roommates, his family had to be informed to make medical decisions. They forbade the hospital to allow his partner to even visit, and
basically refused to allow the hospital to do anything other than the bare minimum. They also never came to the hospital. Two months later he passed
away and the family had him cremated without a ceremony and then had their lawyers inform his partner that he could either cough up half the money
that the house they had purchased together was worth, or it was going on the market immediately. He had ZERO recourse because they could not marry.
Had they been allowed to marry like straight people can, none of this would have happened, and quite possibly he could have lived. He sure as hell
would not have died alone in the hospital.

This happens all too often, and it is the PRIMARY reason we want the equal right to enter the contract of marriage with the partner of OUR choice. It
has nothing to do with 'making you accept' our sexual preference. Your acceptance is neither required nor desired.

It sounds to me like your 2 friends messed up by not properly planning ahead. First off the one that died should have had the other one's name added
to the deed and/or mortgage a long time ago since they were that involved. He should have also prepared a living will declaring his partner would
receive rights to his estate. The partner would have also been allowed to have visited the one in the hospital if they would have drawn up a power of
attorney. Every arguement that you are making could have been prevented if they would have planned ahead.

If you can't reproduce you are only worth the taxes you generate. Do you get it now why gay marriage is pointless?

So then the state is okay with denying people who are naturally infertile the right to marry then? What about people who don't get married until they
are already too old to have kids, are we gonna deny two sixty-five year olds the right to get married because they can't reproduce?

The state quite simply cannot defend such a position as it makes no sense.

Now back on topic let them get married because a domestic partnership is not the same I think two males or females that live together with out
intercourse Is a partnership (you know never mix business with pleasure etc..) but two in love is a totally diffrent thing and they should be able to
adopt as well hell they can't do as bad as some of the married and unmarried couples we have today (or there would not be children up for adoption
now

). So no its not a trojan horse but the anti gay movement seems to be because its a way to limit and control a part of society and their
persuit of happiness and freedoms.

Side note: IF they are allowed to marry it would not really effect any of us directly so where's the beef?

Think about it.
when I was young you could openly insult gay people. Call them whatever name you wanted. They got fired for no reason from jobs. Stuff like that.

Now you can't openly insult them, they can lord workplace/school harassment over us, most women done condone gay bashing. Can't make any kind of gay
reference let alone an insult. Link
You remember that dire straits song money for nothing? They recently tried to change the lyrics and it was banned in Canada for offensive lyrics. The
ban was recently lifted.

This is what i am talking about, it's not about marriage, it's about this type of BS. Regardless a privately owned business should not
have to worry about someones sexual orientation, they should be allowed to discriminate against hiring homosexuals. When we start down this road where
does it stop? This is not a race of people we are talking about, its their choice who they bed, the next thing you know we will be hearing about
lawsuits of opportunity from people claiming to be gay.

Yeah and next thing you know vegetarians will want special treatment as will drug addicts.
I know what you are saying
I personally don't have a problem with gays, I have a problem with people who believe they are above everyone else.

Besides why do gays want to marry anyways? Don't they see all the sh*t problems we straits have with it? Lol.

true, it doesnt really affect most people if they are having legal unions, though Christians are directly affected by church weddings, and in general
the churches that would do such a 180 on the subject. I am still unsure about how God really feels about gay people. I know the Bible made some
references, but still, no one can really know for sure. But to see churches welcome gay marriages and to see gay people go to a christian church would
be like having gay people walk in and say "gee, we like it here, you guys can put up or get out", because while there are many kinds of sins and
forms of sinning, for people who are religiously opposed to gay marriages, you can't just go to church and be quiet about it, not with God looking at
you and saying "really?? You just gonna sit there when you know what I want you to do?" Not saying that that is exactly how I feel, as I have said i
am on a fence of sorts here, but christianity and gay - well, you can either reconcile those things in your mind 100% or you have to walk away.

If the Gay Rights movement has any faults, I would say this is basically it.. although not in any sort of organized fashion as the OP puts it.

With all due respect to my friend Jax, if the game is politics, the rights movement has to learn to play it. Getting caught up on words is in some
ways a trap.

Basically, the core of the problem is that a secular government has NO BUSINESS being involved in the sactioning or manipulation of "marriage".
That is a religious concept and falls 100% into the pervue of religion. The social engineering of marriage into a tax benefit, etc., was a huge
mistake that we are still suffering from socially.

I got married to my wife for the tax benefits. She got married to me for the insurance benefits. We STAY TOGETHER because we love each other and
would do so even if the concept of marriage were abolished. Our being together has absolutely nothing to do with our being married. But the marriage
has important benefits as have been described in this thread already.

However, in a differant thread I authored about this subject, I was actually a bit stunned to come across a gay rights activist who was not happy with
the idea of abolishing "marriage" and replacing it with a civil union FOR ALL PEOPLE. It had to be "marriage" or nothing. I simply did not
understand this way of thinking.

But to Jax's earlier point, you don't tear down a castle by crushing it. You have to take it apart brick by brick. In the case of the Western
world's misguided social customs, you cannot realistically expect every single social block placed against men and women who love others of the same
gender to be removed in one fell swoop. It takes time and incremental steps. So does this make the marriage issue a "trojan horse"? I doubt it.
It means that when the marriage issue is finally and completely settled, the movement will take stock in what other ways they are treated as sub class
citizens and address those issues.

And guess what? This is not limited to gays.. it's also present across racial boundaries as well as physical and mental disabilities. I myself am
almost deaf. I have to get special equipment to be able to perform my job as it involves a LOT of listening. I am also not at all interested in or,
as far as I know, capable of breeding. If either my handicap or my lack of emotional need to have a child were to prevent me from getting the lady I
love the health insurance benefits she needs to stay alive or prevented me from keeping my job, I would be up in arms as well.

When all rights are equal it will be enough... so long as any minority group is denied the same rights as the majority, you will have this... I
suggest you read, and I mean REALLY read, the US Constitution... Every citizen should have the exact same rights, freedoms and protections... To
imply otherwise is un-American. Plain & Simple!

We already have that. Every man has the right to marry the woman of his choice, so long as
she is amenable. Every woman has the right to marry the man of her choice with the same caveat. That is equality. We all have the same rights.

If you can't reproduce you are only worth the taxes you generate. Do you get it now why gay marriage is pointless?

So then you'd be okay with denying people who are naturally infertile the right to marry then? What about people who don't get married until they
are already too old to have kids, are we gonna deny two sixty-five year olds the right to get married because they can't reproduce?

Do you get it now why your argument is broken and stupid?

edit on 4-9-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Loaded question and then putting words in my mouth.

When did I ever say any of that?

I was pointing out the point of view of the State. Do you know what that is?

When all rights are equal it will be enough... so long as any minority group is denied the same rights as the majority, you will have this... I
suggest you read, and I mean REALLY read, the US Constitution... Every citizen should have the exact same rights, freedoms and protections... To
imply otherwise is un-American. Plain & Simple!

We already have that. Every man has the right to marry the woman of his choice, so long as
she is amenable. Every woman has the right to marry the man of her choice with the same caveat. That is equality. We all have the same rights.

That tired old argument is a strawman and you know it. In the states that allow same sex marriage, your sexual orientation has nothing to do with the
person you choose to marry. Two straight same-sex roomates could get married if they wanted to -- and there are logical reasons for someone to do
that.

By saying a gay person already has the right to marry, you are silently adding "but only to someone they don't actually want to marry". It is an
arrogant argument at best and is nothing more than skirting the debate on a technicality.

I was pointing out the point of view of the State. Do you know what that is?

I do apologize, I didn't know you were completely setting aside your own view to take up the position of the state. However I've never heard the
state argue that marriage is only about reproduction, I've never heard a politician make the argument (except perhaps a handful of right wing
christian politicians).

I'll go back and edit my original response.

Learn to read please.

Even literate people can misread things, read too far into things and have knee jerk reactions.

When all rights are equal it will be enough... so long as any minority group is denied the same rights as the majority, you will have this... I
suggest you read, and I mean REALLY read, the US Constitution... Every citizen should have the exact same rights, freedoms and protections... To
imply otherwise is un-American. Plain & Simple!

We already have that. Every man has the right to marry the woman of his choice, so long as
she is amenable. Every woman has the right to marry the man of her choice with the same caveat. That is equality. We all have the same rights.

That tired old argument is a strawman and you know it. In the states that allow same sex marriage, your sexual orientation has nothing to do with the
person you choose to marry. Two straight same-sex roomates could get married if they wanted to -- and there are logical reasons for someone to do
that.

By saying a gay person already has the right to marry, you are silently adding "but only to someone they don't actually want to marry". It is an
arrogant argument at best and is nothing more than skirting the debate on a technicality.

It is EQUAL though. What you want is not equal, it
is special. You want extra rights not equal rights.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.